After four years of litigation, California finally conceded its youth firearms marketing law is unconstitutional and agreed to pay the challenging parties $481,792 in attorney’s fees. The Sportsmen’s Alliance was the first to sound the alarm about this Constitutional nightmare, and believe this victory isn’t just for Californians, but is one shared by all Americans.
In summer 2022, California passed Assembly Bill 2571. The bill banned any marketing of firearms or accessories that might be attractive to minors. In it’s original form, the bill was so broad that advertising youth hunter education programs was illegal. Sportsmen’s Alliance opposed the bill, calling it “dangerous legislation that takes hunter education and firearm safety training off the table in California,” and criticized the bill sponsors for “worshipping anti-gun and anti-hunting dogma over firearm safety.”
The bill passed, and Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, Safari Club International, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and So Cal Top Guns, with support from the National Rifle Association, immediately sued, alleging that the law violated the First, Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It took nearly two years and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before we were able to get a preliminary order enjoining the state from enforcing the law.
“The First Amendment provides different levels of protection to all forms of speech,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “When it comes to commercial advertising, it protects truthful, non-misleading advertising, unless those advertisements further some other illegal activity.”
The Ninth Circuit recognized the law “does not ‘directly’ and ‘materially’ further” the purported goals of “reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors.” Instead, it bans truthful advertising — “for example, an ad showcasing a safer hunting rifle with less recoil for minors would likely be unlawful in California.”
But California was undeterred by that defeat. It prolonged the litigation by seeking an additional appeal before 11 judges on the Ninth Circuit—which was unanimously rejected. Then it fought the scope of the injunction in the district court. But after a second loss in the Ninth Circuit, California finally acquiesced. It now acknowledges what was obvious all along—it infringed on sportsmen’s First Amendment rights, and its paying a heavy price for doing so.
“This is why we have an in-house litigation team,” Jean continued. “And if California does it again, we will sue them again.” Read more
